W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Violations of internal method invariants?

From: Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:47:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPh8+ZrGE8eL4=5FPny_mCdpd-VGBgxxmxK=0CV9nEMTk=2mrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 7/31/14, 9:43 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
>> Right Thing: I think [[PreventExtensions]] on these objects should
>> always return false.
>
> The Web IDL spec requires this already, fwiw: [...]
>
> If there is an actual hook it can hook into now to do that, so much the
> better.

Great. Please pass along to the WebIDL editor(s) that this can be done
by specifying that [[PreventExtensions]] returns false.

>> I think [[DefineProperty]] on these objects
>> should return false if Desc.[[Configurable]] is false or if it's
>> missing and would default to false.
>
> This is not compatible with the HTML spec, sadly (and neither is the spec,
> as a result) for the following reason: HTMLDocument needs to be able to have
> a non-configurable own accessor property named "location".

If "location" is exempt from shadowing, then it can be exempt from the
restriction too. That solves the problem, right?

-j
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 18:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC